Vol. 757 No. 3
6Deputy Dessie Ellis asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will make a statement providing further detail on her decision to shorten community employment announced in Pathways to Work; and if she is concerned that the shortening of CE will compromise its ability to offer meaningful training and qualifications. [11884/12]
As announced in the Pathways to Work programme, one of the five strands will provide greater targeting of activation places and opportunities for job seekers, especially those who are more than one year unemployed. My Department will continue to provide supports in the form of work experience and training through the community and voluntary sectors. There are 85,650 places through a variety of schemes of which 22,300 are community employment.
Community employment will play a critical role in this. The Government is determined that those who are unemployed will be assisted with the appropriate advice, training and work experience to enable them to take advantage of new job opportunities as the economy recovers. Community employment helps people who are out of work for one year or longer to maintain contact with local employment opportunities and to avail of training so that they can get these jobs when they arise. At the same time the programme helps the local community and reduces the impact of long-term unemployment on individuals and their families.
Under Pathways to Work I am prioritising one third of the places on CE schemes towards a shorter, more focused active labour market intervention. This will be undertaken in conjunction with the wider review of community employment schemes currently under way by officials from my Department. The CE part-time integration option of one year is likely to form the basis for this approach. The FÁS system has been using this system already. The option offers an applicant who is more than one year unemployed the opportunity to participate on CE for one year and to avail of training that can enhance their chances of employment. I expect that this period on CE will have a more intense labour market focus by both the scheme sponsor and the individual job seeker towards gaining employment.
CE participants are employed for 19.5 hours per week. Therefore, the option is open to them to participate in part-time courses provided by the VEC and FÁS. Progression to further education and training to obtain major awards will continue to be a key progression route for participants. In addition, participants have a range of education and training programmes available to them from the FÁS training side - which will become SOLAS - and the VECs, including evening courses during and after they leave CE.
I attended the launch of the Pathways to Work initiative to familiarise myself with the considerable change proposed. I was surprised to find the realignment of one third of the places on community employment schemes. My question is simple. There are 22,300 CE places at present. Of that, a number are termed "special CE". Does the realignment relate to one third of the total minus that figure or is it one third of the whole figure?
Has any thought been given to the effect this would have on child care facilities operating through CE schemes which take several years to reach the FETAC level 5 or level 6 that is required? Many CE schemes need a longer period of two or three years. One year simply does not suffice. Problems would arise if CE schemes were reduced to one year.
The Deputy referred to special places. I assume he has in mind ring-fenced places for CE schemes managed by community drug teams and services which, essentially, are rehabilitative in nature. In the review, I asked specifically that this particular CE provision remain ring-fenced, because it provides an important and particular service to people who have or have had a drug problem who are anxious to be involved in a programme of rehabilitation. In many cases these people ultimately become successfully involved in education and training and acquire qualifications.
That response deals with the drugs places but there are others related to child care, disability places and a whole range that has built up over the years. If these are deducted from the 22,000, how many of the CE places are realigned to the new one-year figure?
In child care, there is a specific budget within the overall budget for training. I do not want to prejudge the outcome of the review but child care will occupy a significant and important place with regard to both training opportunities for employment in both the public and private sector and in terms of delivery to a local community where access to good quality child care and after school care may be essential to facilitate people such as lone parents. I cannot give the Deputy the numbers now, because the review is in progress, but the provision of places for particular categories is an important element of the review.
Representatives of three community employment schemes in Wexford, Ferns, Grantstown and Tagoat, have contacted me. They are in a bad way and are very upset about the proposed cuts. I asked them for a breakdown of their costs and spending and I can say that they could give lessons to a number of businesses on how to manage money. I was amazed by how well their schemes were put together and by how well they did things. The Minister says that the troika is putting pressure on budgets and that it is looking for quality of training and value for money. I know the Minister alluded to this herself but the troika will not measure the social dividend and that is what these schemes are about. We should not look at these schemes in purely financial terms. In the overall scheme of things, they are not a massive cost to the State but cutting them will have dramatic social consequences for the State.
Will the Minister explain the contradiction between on the one hand, the shortening of the CE schemes and the opportunities for training for people on the lower end of the skills base who need that training and on the other hand, her drive to ensure that people with higher qualifications, such as professionals, nurses, skilled crafts people and so on, are driven on to training programmes that are many multiples below their existing skills base? Why that contradiction when what these people need is not a different type of training but a job in the profession for which they are qualified, a profession for which there is a basis and need, be it medical care, craftsmanship or whatever? How can she marry the two?
To return to what I said earlier, the Minister said in response to a previous question that the funding is there within the training spend. If the funding is there and the Minister is aware that the review to date has identified savings that will accrue to the State, and will know that towards the end of March, that is a win-win situation for the State. It can retain the CE schemes and still make savings. Therefore, I cannot understand why the threat remains against these CE schemes which have not only a social dividend but also a dividend for those who participate, with the opportunity to use their experience to gain gainful employment thereafter.
Given the transfer of CE to the Department of Social Protection, its importance, the large amount of money spent on CE, the large numbers of people on CE and the 1,400 supervisors employed, it would be very odd if the Department did not conduct a review of this important and significant area of social, economic and training activity. I am aware that many people have asked why we did not conduct the review beforehand. Unfortunately, it did not arrive in the Department until 1 January. Second, as the Deputies are aware, there has been a number of extremely critical reports done on CE which, as mentioned by Deputy Wallace, did not take into account the social delivery aspect of CE. We have over 1,100 CE schemes and they encompass a wide and varied range of activities. It is important for the Department to make itself aware of the breadth and width of CE schemes because some of the criticisms of CE schemes arise from the fact that they are seen purely and solely as labour market activation and progression. That does not tally with the reality of many of the CE schemes.
7Deputy Seamus Kirk asked the Minister for Social Protection the number of farmers that have been affected by the changes to farm assist announced in Budget 2012; the amount of savings she anticipates making on the changes; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [11724/12]
The changes in the farm assist scheme referred to by the Deputy will result in estimated savings of €5 million in a full year and will affect approximately 10,000 recipients. Farm assist is a means-tested payment which is broadly similar to jobseeker's allowance. There are currently approximately 11,310 recipients on the scheme. It is expected to cost €115 million this year, slightly up from approximately €114 million in 2011.
The farm assist means assessment takes into account expenses incurred in relation to farming activities and also includes two sets of disregards that are unique to the farm assist scheme. In arriving at net income, gross income is first established and all expenses necessarily incurred in carrying out self-employment are deducted and then the two sets of disregards are applied. Income and expenditure figures for the preceding year are generally used as an indicator of the expected position in the current year. However, account can be taken of any exceptional circumstances so as to ensure that the assessment accurately reflects the current situation.
Budget 2012 contained two measures relating to farm assist, both of which affect the special disregards. The first measure increases the assessment of means from self-employment, including farming and any other self-employment, from 70% to 85% of net income. The second measure halves the deductions from net income in respect of children to €127 per year for each of the first two dependent children and €190.50 per year for each subsequent child. These measures align the farm assist scheme more closely with the jobseeker's allowance scheme on which it is based, but the means assessment for farm assist is still the more favourable of the two.
Additional information not provided on the floor of the House
Assessment of means from self-employment for jobseeker's allowance is currently 100% and there are no disregards for child dependants.
The measures apply to new claimants from 1 January 2012. For existing claimants, review forms together with an explanatory letter are currently issuing to all farm assist claimants. Claimants will be given two weeks to return the forms. Where this review results in entitlement to a lower rate of payment, each recipient will receive a letter detailing their revised payment levels. A revised decision will issue if the review results in a cessation of entitlement. If a farm assist customer's position changes after their payment rate has been revised, he or she can apply to have his or her means reviewed in light of his or her changed circumstances. In addition, it is open to the individual, if he or she is dissatisfied with the means assessed, to appeal the decision to the social welfare appeals office.
These measures increase equity in the social welfare system by bringing the conditions of the scheme closer to those of jobseeker's allowance and are fair and equitable in our current economic circumstances.
Despite buoyant food prices and the upturn in the farm income in recent years, farmers have been greatly affected by recession and rising production costs. The average farm income remains below €20,000. Under the changes, farmers are finding it more difficult to access the €188 farm assist payment, although it remains a core income supplement for those farmers who seek it. The Minister said that the changes in the scheme will affect 10,000 recipients. Is she considering any other significant changes to farm assist and has the number of visits by welfare officers to farm assist recipients increased over the past 12 months? If so, has the Minister the figures available or will she make them available?
As I said, the farm assist scheme currently benefits 11,311 farmers and farm families. Approximately 10% of them are not affected by this measure because they have little or no income from farming. As I indicated in my reply, the disregards that apply are significantly in excess of what is provided under jobseeker's allowance. In fact, farm assist will continue to constitute a significant support for people with a mixed income, some of which comes from farming and some of which comes from the social income support that is made available through farm assist. As I said, the total expenditure on the scheme is likely to be increased by €1 million this year, from €114 million to €115 million. Obviously, we have been obliged to make savings in the social welfare budget, as set out in the original agreement between the troika and the Deputy's party. We have attempted to do that in a way that keeps the core social welfare benefits intact, while targeting the available funds in the best way possible.
The Minister mentioned that approximately 11,300 people are receiving this supplementary income. That represents an increase of 46% on the 2008 figure and shows how important this is. That is why I asked for a commitment that no further or additional changes are planned in this area. I would also like to ask about the welfare officers who visit recipients of farm assist payments. Can the Minister confirm on the record how many visits have taken place? Can she give information on the extent to which the number of visits by welfare officers to those who receive farm assist has increased? If the Minister does not have that information now, I will accept it at a later date.
I do not have records with me on the number of visits by inspectors. I will ask officials in the Department to send that information to the Deputy. The changes took place in the context of budget 2012. There are no proposals for any further changes. As the Deputy will appreciate, I am not in a position to give undertakings about future budgets.
8Deputy Sandra McLellan asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will make a statement detailing the schedule and nature of training planned for all staff in her Department to enable the National Employments and Entitlements Service to operate effectively. [11876/12]
The first step in establishing the proposed national employment and entitlements service involved transferring staff from the community welfare service and FÁS to the Department of Social Protection. As I said earlier, the transfer of more than 1,700 staff from the two bodies was completed on schedule in October 2011 and January 2012. Approximately 7,000 staff are now employed in the Department, some 400 of whom are involved in activation and case management. As most of them have received professional training in guidance, they have the right competencies to deliver the new service. The staff that transferred from FÁS received training in the provision of guidance services to certificate and diploma level from NUI Maynooth. Most of the 1,000 staff who transferred from the community welfare service have significant experience of dealing with clients on a one-to-one basis. Their skills and experience will be key in transforming the way the Department serves its customers.
Together with the existing staff of the Department, the staff from FÁS and the community welfare service provide a core platform of experience and skill from which we can develop the national employment and entitlements service. They will be integral to the roll-out of the service pilots in four local office areas, which is scheduled to take place in May of this year. As the service rolls out past the pilot phase, and as additional staff are deployed on activation-type work, the provision of relevant and timely training will be critical to ensuring clients receive a high level of service. In this regard, the Department's staff development and transformation units are considering options in relation to the technical skills training that is required for staff who will be involved in the day-to-day implementation of the service but who do not have the requisite level of expertise. Case management and employment guidance are just two elements in the delivery of an integrated service. Other skills, for example, relating to the updated information technology system and the training of deciding officers, will also be needed.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The staff development unit is actively considering all options with regard to the commissioning and delivery of the training that is required to support the business of the Department. All of the community welfare service staff and most of the FÁS staff have already completed induction training to ensure they are successfully integrated into, and quickly familiarised with, the organisation and structures of their new Department. The Department has recently launched a newly designed management development programme for front line and middle management grades. This continuous professional development initiative includes the areas of business process improvement, change management, performance management and planning and will equip our managers to deal with the challenges faced by staff in delivering our new and existing services.
Yesterday, I attended a joint committee meeting at which a presentation on the major information technology challenges was given. The achievement of the targets that have been set in Pathways to Work will also be challenging. Is the Minister confident that the extension of profiling to almost all new claimants by the end of this year, as set out in Pathways to Work, will be achieved? Has the Minister been in contact with the Minister for Education and Skills about the possibility of transferring to the Department some of the school guidance teachers who will become unemployed as a result of changes in the education sector? If they were head-hunted by the Department, they could continue to use the expertise they have gleaned from their years of dealing with young people who would be facing unemployment in the current climate if their guidance teachers had not managed to advise them and guide them towards work. Has any movement been made in that regard?
The Department's staff development unit includes trainers from the Department and the former community welfare service. This unit, which takes the lead in developing and organising relevant training, is planning to train staff on the new services and processes. Some 29 staff are employed directly in the staff development unit. Its training budget for 2012 is €1.6 million, which compares with a budget of €1.1 million in 2011. Obviously, it is an enormous and exciting challenge for the staff of the Department. It is certainly the biggest revamp of the provision of social welfare services for some time. A focus is being placed on helping people to get back into employment, training and education. As the Department is being transformed, the challenges are very significant.
9Deputy Barry Cowen asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will provide a definition of control savings; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [11711/12]
Control savings are an estimate of the value of the various control activities across the Department's schemes. They represent an estimate of the value of prevented future social welfare expenditure on claims that would have been incurred if the control work had not been carried out. Control savings are used as a performance indicator for year-on-year activities. They do not include any cases of departmental or clerical error, or any case in which a customer voluntarily told the Department of a change in his or her means or circumstances that resulted in an adjustment of his or her rate of payment. The control savings target for 2012 is €645 million. A further target of reviewing 945,000 individual welfare claims has been set. These targets will be kept under review over the course of the year.
Actual moneys are recovered when the Department assesses overpayment in individual cases and subsequently recovers such debt. If, following a review of a claim in payment, it is confirmed that a client is receiving a payment to which he or she is not entitled, or is receiving a payment at a higher rate than that to which he or she is entitled, a deciding officer makes a revised decision on the entitlement. Deciding officers decide the effective date of a revised decision, having regard to the new facts or evidence and the circumstances of the case. This can result in an assessment of overpayment. In 2010, total overpayment amounted to €83.4 million, which represented 0.41% of total departmental expenditure. Overpayment arising from activity suspected of being fraudulent amounted to €25.9 million in 2010. The overpayment figures for 2011 will not be released until they have been audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
Social welfare fraud undermines public confidence in the entire system. It is unfair to other recipients of social welfare payments, to businesses that are run on a legitimate basis and to taxpayers. The fraud initiative 2011–2013 sets out a range of actions to combat fraud and abuse of the social welfare system and to ensure public confidence and trust in the system. These actions will be reviewed periodically and updated, as required, given emerging trends.
As Minister, I am very conscious of the need to protect public money and I am determined to ensure that abuse of the system is prevented and is dealt with effectively when detected.
In 2010, the Department referred a total of 341 cases for legal proceedings under either social welfare or criminal justice legislation out of a total of 1.4 million people receiving payments. This represents 0.024% of claimants. Does the Minister accept, therefore, that the fraud statistics published by her Department are misleading in that they clearly imply an exorbitant level of fraud that is not statistically verifiable? The rhetoric and commentary in this regard is unfair, unjust and uncalled for. The people on the live register are hurting, not only financially but also mentally, in their efforts to maintain their family life and some form of normality against a backdrop of this cruel existence. This commentary and rhetoric must cease. I ask the Minister to comment on the fact that the numbers as issued by the Department are misleading.
I am surprised by the Deputy's statement because in my experience, most people in receipt of a social welfare income are very anxious that the small number of people who are scamming the system should be stopped in so far as this is possible. I hear this from pensioners and from unemployed people. I hear concerns expressed about employers who may be employing people under the counter, as it were, and in the shadow economy. If the Deputy has not heard this same concerns expressed, then I am a little surprised, to be honest. Most people who are in receipt of social welfare payments are utterly honest and they receive no more nor no less than their entitlement. However, some people are claiming entitlements to which they are not properly entitled. I do not make any apology for the Government giving a high priority to ensuring that social welfare payments go to people who are entitled to those payments and not to people who have no entitlement or who may be involved in other activities.
The Deputy referred to cases being brought to court. This happens in a very small number of instances because prosecution is ultimately a matter for the Garda Síochána and the Director of Public Prosecutions but there have been a number of cases, particularly involving people using multiple identities or submitting multiple claims for social welfare purposes. The courts have taken a very serious view in such cases of these activities.
I can only go by the statistical analysis and the information shows this percentage, 0.024%, of cases going through the legal process. Of course, abuse of the system cannot be condoned but I point out the fact that it is engaged in by only a minute percentage. This being the case - and given the confusion this figure has produced - has the Minister plans to create a more comprehensive and accurate detection system and also a system for publication regarding the various levels of savings made within the Department? This would avoid the confusion that a figure such as €645 million is an all-encompassing figure for fraud when this is not necessarily the case.
I repeat that the figure of €645 million is the prevention of expenditure which would occur if checks and extensive checking were not undertaken to ensure that people were in receipt of the correct payments. The fraud initiative includes targeted reviews and examinations within areas which may be deemed to be a fraud risk. The most effective use of audit resources is to target at-risk areas. For instance, a targeted control project involving both former community welfare officers and social welfare inspectors took place in June 2011. Some 320 clients were visited, of whom 90 were called for further interview. A total of 43 clients had their payments suspended, 18 for non-attendance at interview, 16 for no longer being at the address stated and nine for non-compliance with requests to supply information. The savings generated in that case was €140,000. The Department of Social Protection, the Garda Síochána and the Revenue, co-operate in an investigation of those working on taxi ranks in order to identify people who are operating taxis who are not registered for PRSI or for taxation purposes and who may not be in possession of a valid taxi licence.
I ask for the Minister's co-operation as we have gone over time. I ask for brief questions from Deputies Daly, Ó Snodaigh and Wallace.
The Minister would make Margaret Thatcher proud. Nobody is arguing that fraud should be tolerated but the Minister has elevated this issue to the extent that people who, through no fault of their own, may be in receipt of an inaccurate payment, are being demonised as people who are robbing the State, more or less. She speaks about protecting public money. It is also her duty to ensure that scarce resources and public workers are employed to the best effect. Her Department's staff are out investigating malicious complaints in many instances when there is a backlog of payments waiting for people who are entitled to social welfare payments. This is neither a protection nor a good use of public money.
The Comptroller and Auditor General said that the Department's current practice of including all overpayments arising from control activity as bankable savings, is questionable. I will explain that control savings are where there are no controls and no inspections. Michael Taft said it would be like the gardaí estimating the number of murders that might take place over time if there was no police force. The figure of €650 million is inaccurate whereas the €20 million or €26 million is probably more accurate. All fraud is wrong. If that figure of €26 million is correct or if the Minister believes there is more, why have no additional social welfare inspectors been employed?
I agree with the Minister that it is very important to tackle fraud. For example, if two blocklayers are pricing a 50 m wall and one of them is signing on the dole illegally then it is an unfair playing field. Because of the manner in which the figures were presented, the right-wing media is liable to use the figures in the manner in which they were presented sometimes in order to paint the wrong picture. This is what happened a few weeks ago.
I call the Minister for a final reply.
Deputy Ó Snodaigh's reference to the Garda Síochána is really important. We have all discussed that if there is an emphasis on community policing and if an estate is not allowed to be run down and if broken windows are repaired, then law-abiding citizens are more confident that everything is being done properly. Is the Deputy now saying that extra policing resources are a waste of time-----
The Department should have more inspectors.
No interruptions, please, Deputy.
-----because that is exactly what-----
The Minister is not employing more social welfare inspectors.
The Deputy's analogy is exactly the point about social welfare fraud. Deputy Wallace has said that if -----
-----an employer is competing with a business down the street which is employing people under the counter and in the shadow economy, that business has to compete against a business with an unfair advantage over a legitimate employer. There has to be some honesty in this regard. I repeat that the vast majority of people who have social welfare income support of any kind are paid exactly what they are entitled to, no more and no less. Thankfully, the vast majority of people are utterly honest. Does this mean that we should ignore people who are scamming or abusing the system? We have to maintain confidence in the system so that if people are scamming the system they are targeted. I put it to Deputy Daly that the best way to target fraud and abuse is to use good intelligence in order to identify high risk areas where there has been an identifiable risk of wrong. Ultimately, as the Department and the Revenue Commissioners roll out improvements in computer systems and the personal services card, we will be able to do a lot more checking and verification of identity at the point where people collect payments. We will also be able to match data so that if there is something ontoward, say, for instance it turns out that there are perhaps ten households claiming a payment of some kind from one address, this would suggest a possible audit would be required. This is modern auditing.
Written Answers follow Adjournment.
The Dáil adjourned at 5.50 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 2 March 2011.
